Profesi Hukum Indonesia Melli Darsa  ;   Pendiri Law Firm MDC; Anggota Peradi; Dewan Kehormatan HKHPM; Ketua Umum Iluni FHUI; dan Pengajar di FHUI

KOMPAS,  27 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

DANIEL S Lev adalah profesor dari University of Washington, Amerika Serikat. Meninggal tahun 2006, sampai kini ia masih dianggap sebagai pakar ”Indonesianis” paling otoritatif tentang politik dan profesi hukum (lawyer) di Indonesia. Karyanya selama 30 tahun banyak memengaruhi pemahaman terkait politik hukum Indonesia, termasuk peran civil society. Ia juga banyak mengkaji tentang peran lawyer mendorong perubahan sosial politik dan kebijakan hukum. Rutin datang ke Indonesia dan fasih berbahasa Indonesia, banyak tokoh hukum dan politik berutang budi padanya. Ia memotivasi dan menginspirasi banyak advokat pejuang hak asasi manusia (HAM), pekerja bantuan hukum, akademisi hukum, bahkan juga saya sebagai seorang lawyer korporat. Semua yang beruntung mengenalnya menganggapnya pembimbing, mentor, dan sahabat. Dalam tulisannya, ”Between State and Society: Professional Lawyers and Reform in Indonesia”, Lev membahas perjalanan kaum profesi hukum Indonesia sejak tahun 1920 sampai terbitnya Undang-Undang Advokat 2003. Menurut dia, lawyer atau penyedia jasa hukum di Indonesia bukan hanya terdiri dari advokat, melainkan juga mediator informal, pokrol bambu, notaris, dan pekerja bantuan hukum. Profesi lawyer terpecah antara lain karena ketiadaan standardisasi uji profesi sampai masa UU Advokat 2003. Sejak UU Penanaman Modal Asing tahun 1967, banyak lawyer memilih fokus pada jasa konsultasi dan negosiasi kontrak untuk kepentingan korporasi asing. Kelompok lawyer ini juga dijuluki ”konsultan hukum”, lebih karena tidak ada kata Indonesia yang setara dengan ”counsellor” atau ”solicitor”. Umumnya berkantor di kantor megah dan sukses secara finansial, Lev mencatat bahwa para konsultan hukum umumnya tidak aktif dalam masalah state and society. Lev menduga kemungkinan mereka merasa berutang budi pada rezim Orde Baru sehingga enggan bertentangan dengan pemerintah. Adalah advokat/pejuang HAM yang akhirnya lebih banyak perjuangkan transparansi, hak politik dan HAM sebagai dasar lahirnya Indonesia sebagai demokrasi sesungguhnya menyusul krisis finansial Asia pada akhir 1990-an. Lev juga mengulas perjuangan lawyer membentuk ”wadah tunggal” (singlebar) untuk memperjuangkan ”independensi” para lawyer melalui organisasi profesi yang mandiri. Sejak kepergiannya, terasa kekosongan pencerahan melalui figur atau literatur sejenis. Menurut penulis, belum ada akademisi Indonesianis dengan kualitas setara ataupun se-prolifik Lev. Seandainya Lev ada, ia akan telaah statistik meningkatnya jumlah fakultas hukum menjadi total 367 dan meningkatnya lulusan sarjana tingkat S-1 sampai S-3 di dalam negeri. Masalah ”mafia hukum” akan lebih gamblang dijabarkan. Lev juga pasti menelaah pengaruh masuknya lawyer di yudikatif, legislatif, dan eksekutif bagi kelanjutan proses reformasi hukum. RUU Advokat Namun, bagaimana pendapat Lev tentang Rancangan Undang-Undang (RUU) Advokat yang hendak digolkan menjadi UU sebelum berakhirnya DPR 2009-2014? Bagi penulis, RUU Advokat tidak reformis dan bernuansa politik. Tujuan utamanya melegitimasi organisasi profesi selain Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia (Peradi) dan lawyer di dalamnya sebagai advokat berdasarkan undang-undang (Multi Bar). Selain itu, kemandirian lawyer hendak dikompromikan dengan Dewan Advokat Nasional yang proses pemilihannya melibatkan presiden dan DPR. UU Advokat 2003 memang harus diubah karena paradigmanya terbelakang dan tidak mengantisipasi globalisasi. Peradi memang perlu diperbaiki tata-kelolanya ataupun standar kerjanya. Namun, tidak berarti UU Advokat harus diubah tergesa-gesa, apalagi dengan konsep RUU Advokat yang kini ada. Paling disayangkan adalah RUU Advokat buta pada realitas bahwa profesi lawyer Indonesia sudah bertransformasi menjadi suatu industri dan bisnis. Secara finansial dan praktis, profesi lawyer menjadi bagian dari industri jasa global, tetapi tanpa suatu rezim pengaturan yang mengawasinya. RUU Advokat tetap mempertahankan ketentuan larangan praktik bagi advokat asing dan kantornya untuk beroperasi di Indonesia. RUU menutup mata pada fakta telah beroperasinya firma-firma hukum luar negeri secara terselubung. Artinya, RUU Advokat gagal untuk mengatasi ”penyelundupan” firma hukum asing dalam industri jasa hukum Indonesia. Ia juga tidak memberi landasan bagi pemerintah untuk menetapkan kewajiban seperti pajak atau pengembangan tenaga Advokat Indonesia, seperti layaknya yang berlaku bagi setiap usaha asing yang ”masuk” ke wilayah Indonesia. Padahal, di Tiongkok, Vietnam, bahkan Myanmar sekalipun, itu diatur. RUU Advokat bahkan tidak mengatur bentuk usaha lawyer ataupun syarat minimal modal atau kualifikasi bagi pendiri dan pimpinan kantor advokat. Karena RUU didukung pemerintah, berarti pemerintah memang tidak peduli pentingnya kompetisi yang sehat (level playing field) antara kantor advokat dan konsultan hukum modal nasional dengan kantor yang didukung firma hukum global. Mungkinkah Lev, jika masih hidup, akan menulis tentang tantangan globalisasi dan korupsi bagi kaum lawyer Indonesia? Mungkin dengan demikian, khalayak ramai dan juga para lawyer yang duduk di eksekutif dan legislatif baru terbuka matanya melihat keterbelakangan regulasi lawyer di Indonesia, khususnya UU Advokat 2003 ataupun konsep RUU Advokat yang tengah diajukan sekarang. ●

The election that is ‘slipping away’ Melli Darsa  ;   A lawyer in Jakarta, President of the Alumni Association of the University of Indonesia’s Law School (ILUNI FHUI)

JAKARTA POST,  01 Juni 2014

                                                

                                                                                         

                                                      

I was one of the happiest Indonesians when Soeharto finally stepped down 16 years ago. It was not due to a lack of gratitude for what I had enjoyed as the daughter of a career diplomat, who had served most of his career under Soeharto’s rule. That Soeharto finally left office, amid a devastating regional financial crisis, paved the way for true democracy, transparency and good governance in Indonesia. Indeed, we can proudly say that Indonesia now is one of the most vibrant democracies in the world. This is not a small achievement for a country with such a long history of being subject to dictatorship. Nevertheless, despite the presence of institutions and commissions like the Constitutional Court, Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Judicial Commission and the General Elections Commission (KPU), it seems the country is still in disarray. The judiciary continues to be an embarrassment, affordable education and health care remain non-existent, while traffic congestion and a lack of infrastructure continue to affect our efficiency and effectiveness. Meanwhile, living in the nation’s capital is as expensive as some of the best cities in the world. No wonder that some of those who lived during Soeharto’s era actually miss the time when Indonesia had virtually no freedom of the press, association or speech. Looking at our neighbor, Singapore, what we need is a strong, visionary leader who can rule without interruption and put the economy at the top of the agenda. We need someone who not is only is willing to provide the best education to all, but is also committed to the rule of law to strengthen the nation. However, Indonesians voiced their view loudly and clearly when no party achieved the 25 percent legislative threshold in the April election. No single party pleased the average Indonesian. Probably, we feel that the country’s political parties are no more than vehicles to power and tools of occasional narcissism. Meanwhile, political parties and politicians — and even ministerial wannabes — never seem far from corruption. The cost of securing a political seat/position is so expensive that most resort to transacting their way to power. While the people have spoken, we perhaps feel “disenfranchised” and powerless, finding ourselves needing to choose the “best” from those who we never truly liked or even knew until recently. After showing that they did not overwhelmingly favor any political party in particular, the people then ended up having no say in the coalitions that were formed. Some parties even seem to have set their feet in both camps. I believe that the whole electoral process has left most voters confused or apathetic. I was already bemused during the legislative election. But now, for the presidential election, despite my Harvard education and 25 years worth of experience as a lawyer, I am still as bewildered as ever after reading each presidential candidate’s respective platform. Neither candidate offers ready-to-implement programs. Not only will realizing their respective visions and missions require a lot of money, the source of which is unclear, there is also the assumption that the right people will be found in the right place in every instance, as well as a highly supportive legislature and well-functioning government bureaucracy. The fact that there are two very different presidential candidates in the form of Prabowo Subianto and Joko Widodo running alongside former Cabinet members does not make the choice any easier. Given that neither presidential candidate has been tested for the post, all Indonesians continue to be confused, except perhaps for a small number who may have a vested interest in supporting one or the other. It is the greatest irony that Indonesia in its journey toward democracy now finds itself in this situation. I for one choose to blame the dysfunctional legislature and judiciary, in addition to the poor leadership shown by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono during the last five years. I will not, however, merely sit by and hope that the 2019 election will be better than this one. I do not want this election to be the “one that got away” and end up being the subject of regret. I know this is a critical moment in Indonesian history, and we Indonesians need to realize that 2019 will never be better unless we as a people all our part, starting now. So, besides casting my vote on July 9, I will try to overcome my own sense of powerless and confusion, and do all I can to make this country better. ●